### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 11041

U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A , P l ai n t i f f –A pp el l ee , v. V E R O N IC AM . A L L E N ; B E R N A R D B . A L L E N , D efen da n t s–A pp el l an t s.

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas

B e fo r e G A R W O O D , O W E N , a n d S O U T H W IC K , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M : V e r o n ic a a n d B e r n a r d A lle n a p p e a l th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f th e ir
m ot i on t o rec u se f

rom t h ei r c ri m i n a l co n t em pt t ri al

. V eroni ca A l l en al so cha l l en ges her convic t i on f or c ri m i n alcontem pt on t h e groun ds t h at t h e di st ri ct
c o ur t r e l i ed on an i nc o r r e c tl e ga ls t and ar d i n f i ndi ng he r g ui l t y and t hatt he
e v id e n c e w a s in s u ffic ie n t t o s u p p o r t h e r co n v ic tio n . W e a ffir m . I Th e Go v e r n m e n t fi l e d a c i v i lp e t i t i o n i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o e n f o r c e I RS
s um m o ns e s i s s ue d t o t he Al l en s. O n Fe br uar y 13 , 2 00 8, i n r e s po ns e t o t he peti t i on , t h e di st ri ctcourti ssued an order t o sh o w c au se w h y t h e sum m on ses shou l d n ot be enfor ced, di rect i n g t h e A l l en s t o app ear bef ore t h e courton United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 28, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 11041

2 F ebru ary 20, 200 8. Th e A l l en s, how ever, di d n otapp ear bu t i n st ead a nu m ber of doc um ent s w er e de l i ver ed to t he c our t c l er k on Febr uary 19, i ncl udi ng a

“ NON- NEG OT I AB L E NOT I CE OF A CC EP T ANC E, NOT I CE OF F AC T S A ND D E M A N D F O R F U L L D ISC L O S U R E , ” w h i ch i n cl u ded as att ach m en t s c opi es of t he I RS s u m m o n s e s , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s o r d e r t o s h o w c a u s e , a n d t he G overnm en t ’ s pet i t i on to enfor ce t h e sum m on ses. Th e docum en t , w h i ch bore
n ot ari zed si gn atures of both t h e A l l en s, st ated: “ I am i n recei pt of you r al l eged ‘S U M M O N S .’” T h a t sam e d a y th e cou rt issu ed an oth er or d er d i recting the A l l en s to
com pl y w i t h th e I R S su m m on ses by ap pea ri n g at a s peci f i ed IR S of

f i ce on Februar y 29. The A l l ens agai n fai l ed t o c om pl y. Fol l o w i ng t he Al l e ns ’fai l ur e t o a ppe ara t t he I RS of f i c e , t he G o ve r nm e nt
m o ve d t o ho l d t he Al l e ns i n c i vi lc o nt e m pt
. The ne xtda y, o n J une 1 0, 2 00 8, t he
c o u r t is s u e d a n o r d e r t o s h o w ca u s e w h y th e A lle n s s h o u ld n o t b e h e ld in contem pt, d i rect i n g t h em t o app ear bef ore i t on Ju n e 19. Th e A l l en s agai n fai l ed t o a ppe ar , i ns t e ad f

i l i ng do c um e nt s w i t h t he cl e r k t hr o ugh a pr o c e s s s e r ve rw ho ap pea red on t h i s da t e. T h ese docu m en t s i n cl u ded a n ot ari zed aff i da vi t , si gn ed b y bo th A l l en s, w h i ch stated tha t i t con sti tu ted the A l l en s’ap p ea ra n ce in co u rt. T h e af f i da vi t al so st ated t h at t h e A l l en s h ad received t h e court ’ s or der t o show
cau se i ssued on F ebru ary 13, 200 8, a n d t h at i t “w as a dd ress ed t o an d d el i vered t o m y w i fe an d I .

. . ord eri n g m y w i fe a n d I .

. . t o app ear i n t h i s c ou rtroom on th e 2 0 th d a y o f F e b r u a r y , 2 0 0 8 a t 1 0 a m .” Conf i r m i ng t hatt he A l l e ns w e r e notpr e s e nt , t he di s t r i c t c o ur t a s ke d t he G ove r nm entf

ors ugges t i ons on how t o pr oc ee d. The G ove r nm e ntr e s p onded t hat it w o u ld file a m o tio n fo r a w r i t o f a t t a c h m e n t a n d th a t t h e h e a r in g s co u ld proceed w h en t h e A l l en s w ere brou gh t t o court. T h e di st ri ct cour t, h o w e ver,N o. 08- 11041

3 di re cte d the U n i t ed S t ates A t t orney to i n i t i ate c ri m i n alcontem pt c h arges pu rsuan t t o 18 U

. S

. C

. § 401(3) , an d the G overnm en t di d so short l y t h ereaf t er. Af t e r h er i ni t i ala ppe ar anc e i n t he c r i m i nalm at t e r , M r s . Al l e n f i l e d a
m ot i on seeki n g t h e recusal of t h e t ri al j u dg e. C i t i n g rem arks m ad e by t h e court dur i ng t he he ar i ng o n J une 1 9, w hi c h s he a s s e r t e d a ppe ar e d t o s ho w t hatt he
c o u r t h a d p r eju d g e d h e r g u ilt, M r s . A lle n a r g u e d th a t th e ju d g e w o u ld b e u n a b le to p r e s id e w ith fa ir n e s s a n d im p a r tia lity

. T h e co u r t d e n ie d th is m o tio n . D u ri n g t h e b en ch tr i alon the cri m i n alcontem pt c h arges, M rs. A l l en t es t i f i ed t hat s he w a s ou t of t ow n w hen t he o r i gi nals how c ause or derw as del i vered and t h at h er hu sban d si gn ed h er nam e on the docu m en t s f i l ed i n l i eu of an app earan ce on F ebru ary 20. Sh e f u rt h er t est ifi ed that she w as un aw are of t he s ho w c a us e o r d e r u nt i la f t e r t he o r i g i na lh e a r i ngd a t e a nd t ha t s he w as al so un aw are of

t h e order di rect i n g h er to ap pea r att h e I R S of f i ces on F ebru ary 29
. M r s . Al l e n ad m i t t e d t hat s he kne w o f t he o r de r t o ap pe ari n c o ur t o n J une 1 9 , b u t t e s tifie d th a t s h e w a s a d v is e d b y G a le n D a n n e r , a la y p e r s o n , th a t it
w ou l d be su f

f i ci en tt o a pp ear b y f

i l i n g docu m en t s w i t h the court. M rs. A l l en al so t e s t i f i e d t hat D anne r pr e pa r e d t he s e do c um e nt s f o r a $2 , 00 0 fe e and t hat s he be l i e ve d i n g o o d fai t h t hatfai l ur e t o a ppe ari n pe r s o n woul d no t v i o l at e t he court’ s or der. D an n er t est i f

i ed at t ri al bu t ref

u sed t o an sw er m ost qu est i on s f or f ear of
s e l f

- i nc r i m i nat i o n. Danne r di d a dm i t t o kno w i ng t he Al l e ns but de ni e d t hathe provi ded t h em w i t h assi st an ce i n prepa ri n g t h e docum en t s t h at w ere s u bm i t t ed t o t he c o ur ti n l i e u o f a pe r s o nala ppe ar anc e . H e a l s o de ni e d t hathe a dv i s e d t he A lle n s n o t t o a p p e a r in co u r t a n d th a t t h e A lle n s h a d p a id h im m o n e y in excha n ge f

or hi s l egal ad vi ce. T h e di st ri ctcourtul t i m atel y f ou n d M r. A l l en g u i l t y of t h ree i n st an ces of
c o n te m p t a n d M r s . A lle n g u ilty o f o n e in s ta n c e .N o. 08- 11041

Matass arin v. L

ynch , 1 7 4F .3 d 5 4 9 , 5 7 1 ( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 9). 1 See United States v. Molina , 5 3 0F .3 d 3 2 6 , 3 2 9( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 8); see a lso U nited States 2 v. Wes tb rook , 11 9 F .3d 1 176 , 11 85-8 6 (5 th Cir. 1 997) (collecting ca ses holdin g that a codefe nd an ti s not r equired to make th e futilegestureof repeating or jo ininga motionor obj ectionth at h a s alr ea dyb ee nd enie d b yth e trial j u dge)

. See Molina , 53 0 F .3d at 3 29. 3 See 28 U.S.C. § 4 55(a) (“Anyj ustice , j udge, o r magistrat e j udge of th e United State s 4 shall di squalifyhimself in anypro ceedinginwhich his imparti ality might re aso nablybe qu es tion ed .”). 4 II T h e A ll e n s a r g u e th a tth e d is t r ic t c o u r t e r r e d in d e n y in gM r s . A ll e n ’s
m ot i on t o rec u se. At ri alju d g e ’ s den i alof a m ot i on t o rec u se i s r evi ew ed f or abu se of

di scr et i on . H ow ever, becau se M r. A l l en di d n otf i l e a separate m ot i on 1 to re c u s e in d is tr ic t c o u r t, h is a r g u m e n ts th a t w e r e n o t r a is e d b y M r s . A lle n in h er or i gi n alm ot i on t o rec u se are revi ew ed f or pl ai n err or. 2 A A s an i nit i a l m a t t er , M r . A l l en ar gues t hat t he t r i alj udge us ed an i n corr ectst an da rd i n eval u ati n g t h e m ot i o n t o rec u se. B ecau se t h i s obj ect i on
w as not m ad e bel ow , w e revi ew f or pl ai n err or. 3 In den yi n g t h e m o tion t o rec u se, t h e t ri alj u dg e st ated: “ I’ m un aw are of
an y case authori t y t h at w o u ld s u ggest I shou l d recuse un der t h ese c i r c um st ance s. M y o bl i gat i on i s t o pr es i de unl es s t her e’ s a l egalre as on w hy I shou l d n ot
. . . . A n d I do kn ow t h at I am sup pose d to p re sid e u n less t h ere’ s a
r eas on nott o. ” M r . A l l en ar gues t hat t hi s st at em ent dem ons t r at es t hat t he t r i al j u d g e d i d n o tc o n s i d e r t h e c o r r e c t s t a n d a r d f o r r e c us a lo u t l i n e d i n 2 8 U. S

. C. § 4 5 5 (a ). 4 Thi s a r gum e nti s unava i l i ng be c aus e t he re c o r d d o e s no t i ndi c at e t hatt he t r i alj udge fai l ed t o co nsi der§ 455( a)

. The j udge o bvi ous l y di d notbe l i eve t hatN o. 08- 11041

See Kinnear-Weed Cor p. v. Humble Oil & Ref. C o. , 44 1 F .2d 6 31, 634(5th Cir. 1 971 ) 5 (hol ding th at a trialj udge di d not abusehis di scretio n byfailin g to r ecusehimself und er § 45 5 and notingth at the ju dge“co nside red the matte r of his possible disqu alificationan d pro perly co nclu de d th at itwa s hisdutyan d hisob li g ationt o co ntinu e top re si deinthisc a se”)

. 49 7 F.2 d 107 , 109 (5th Cir. 197 4) (holdingth at a c onte mpt tri al had to b e co nducted 6 befo re adiffe rentj udge and statin g that this was “especi ally [so] inview of t he fact th at no exigent circ u mst a nce s m ilit ateo th erwi se”)

. I d

. at 108 -09 (describ ing the situation as a “stran ge milie u of a j udge pa ssingonth e 7 cl arityo f hiso wno rd er s, whichh a d tob e sub st a nti ate d largelyb yhiso wnl egal st aff ”)

. 2 8U .S .C

. § 4 5 5 (a). 8 5 h e h a d a n o b lig a tio n to p r e s id e re g a r d le s s o f th e cir c u m s ta n c e s , a s h e cle a r ly st ated t h at he w ou l d p resi de on l y i f t h ere w as no le g alreason n ott o. I nc o ns i s t e nc y w i t h § 45 5( a) w o ul d c o ns t i t ut e s uc h l e ga l r e as o n. M o r e o ve r , t he j u d ge ’ s statem en t w a s n ot l eg a l l y in corre ct. 5 M r. A l l en al so argues t h at t h e di st ri ctcourtshou l d h ave u sed t h e “ m ore
s t r i nge n t ” s t and ar d a nno unc e d i n Un i t ed S t ate s v. CB S, I n c. , b u t t h a t c a s e is 6 i nap po s i t e . I n CBS , i tw as cr i t i caltha t the t ri alj u dg e’ s i n i t i alorders w ere not
r e c o r de d, r e qui r i ng t he j udg e t o a c t a s m at e r i alw i t ne s s r e ga r di ng t he c o nt e nt
o f t he i ni t i alo r de r s a s w e l la s t he j udg e i n t he subsequ en t c o nt e m pt proceedi n gs. Th e sam e ci rcum st an ces are not present h ere. 7 B T h e A l l en s argue that t h e t ri alj u dg e shou l d h ave recused h i m sel f becau se hi s s t at e m e nt s a nd c o nduc tdur i ng t he he ar i ngs o n t he o r de r s t o s ho w ca us e a nd att r i alw o ul d c aus e a r e as o nab l e per s o n t o doub t t he j udg e ’ s i m pa r t i al i t y. The federal st atute governi n g j u di ci ald i squ al i f i cat i on p rovi des t h at di squ al i f i cat i on i s ne c e s s ar y “ i n a ny pr o c e e di ng i n whi c h [ t he j udg e ’ s ] i m pa r t i al i t y m i ght
reasona bl y be qu est i on ed. ” W e ha ve exp l ai n ed that t h e st an da rd f or 8 di s qua l i f

i c at i o n i s “ w he t he r a re as o nab l e per s o n, w i t h f ul lknowl e dg e of

a l lt heN o. 08- 11041

Matass arin v. L

ynch , 174 F

. 3 d549 , 571 (5t h Cir. 1999) (quot ing Vieux Carre P rop. 9 Own ers, Resi den ts, an dAss ocs. , I n c. v . B ro wn , 94 8 F .2d 1 436 , 14 48 (5thC ir. 1 991 ) (intern al qu ot ationmark s o mitt ed))

.

Liteky v. Un ited

States , 5 1 0U .S

. 5 4 0 , 5 5 5( 1 9 9 4). 10 See id. at55 1 (“Al so not subj ect to de precatorych aracteri zationas ‘bi as’ or ‘ prej udic e’ 11 are opinion s held b y ju dge s as a result of what they learned in earlier procee dings. Ith as long bee n regarded as normalan d pro per for aj udge tosit in the same c ase uponit s remand, and tosit insucc es sive trialsinvolvin gth e sa med ef en dant. ”)

. Id

. at 5 5 5(em ph a si s a dd ed). 12 6 ci rcum st an ces, w ou l d h arbor dou bts a bou t t h e j u dg e’ s i m pa rt i al i t y. ” Th u s, 9
a c tu a l b ia s is n o t r e q u ir e d

. H o w e v e r , a s th e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s e x p la in e d : [ O ] pi n i on s f

orm ed by t h e j u dg e on the basi s of fact s i n t rodu ced or even t s oc curri n g i n t h e course of t h e current proceedi n gs, or of pri or proceedi n gs, do n ot const i t u t e a b asi s f or a bi as or pa rt i al i t y m ot i on unl es s t hey di spl ay a dee p-sea t ed favor i t i sm orant agoni sm t hat w o ul d m ak e fai r j udg m e nti m po s s i bl e . Thus , j udi c i alr e m ar ks du ri n g t h e course of a t ri alt h at are cr iti calor di sapp rovi n g of, or even hosti l e t o, coun sel , t h e pa rt i es, or t h ei r c ases, ordi n ari l y do n ot suppor ta bi as or par t i al i t y chal l enge. T hey m ay do so i f t hey r eve al an opi ni on t hat der i ves f r om an ext r aj udi c i als our c e; and t hey w ill do so i f t h ey revealsuch a hi gh degree of favori t i sm or an t agon i sm as t o m ak e fai r j u dg m en ti m possi bl e. 10 Fi r s t , t he t r i alj udg e ’ s re m ar ks re ga r di ng hi s opi ni o n of t he c as e
— t hatt he A l l en s w ere l i k ely i n crim i n a lcon tem p t an d tha t t h ey viol a ted the cou rts
o r d e r s — d id n o t r e v e a l o p in io n s d e r iv e d f r o m a n e x tr aju d ic ia l s o u r c e . E v e n if 11 t h ey di d, h ow ever, “opi n i on s f orm ed by t h e j u dg e on the basi s of fact s i n t rodu ced
o r e v e n ts o c c u r r in gin t h e c o u r s e o f th e cu r r e n t p r o c e e d in g s , or of pri or pro c e e di ngs , d o n ot con st i t u t e a b asi s f or a bi as or pa rt i al i t y m ot i on un l ess t h ey di s pl aya de e p- s e at e d fav o r i t i s m o r ant ag o ni s m t hat w o ul d m ak e fai r j udg m e nt im p o s s ib le .” 12N o. 08- 11041

7 The Al l e ns a r gue t hatt he y m ad e t he r e qui s i t e s ho w i ng. Fi r s t , t he y ar gue t h at t h e j u dg e’ s s t atem en t s t h at t h e A ll e n s h ad “ vi ol ated” t h e orders t o show
cau se and t h at t h ey w ere “ n ow i n cr i m i n alcontem pt as far as [h e w as]
c o n c e r n e d ” r e q u ir e d d is q u a li fi c a t io n b e ca u se th e yd e m o n s t r a t e d th e tr ia l ju d g e ’s ant ag o ni s m a nd p r ej udg m e nto f t he c as e . As t o t he s t at e m e nt s t hatt he Al l e ns

“ vi ol ated” t h e orders t o show cause, t h e d i st ri ctcourtm erel y m ad e a cor rect fact u alobservati on . Th e A l l en s un qu est i on ably di d “vi ol ate” t h e orders by n ot
a p p e a r in gin co u r t. As t o t he s t at e m e nt t hat t he Al l e ns w e r e i n c r i m i nal c o nt e m pt as far as t he t ri al j udg e w as c o nc e r ne d, t he r e c o r d d o e s no t s upp o r t t he c o nc l us i o n t hatt he di st ri ctcourtprej u dg ed the case. For exam pl e, on Ju n e 1 9th, the court f ol l ow ed th e a l l eg ed l y b i a sed statem en t b y rem a rk i n g th a t t h e A l l en s w ou l d be su b j ect “t o c r i m i nal p u n i shm enti f, i n fac t , att he hear i ng t hat ’ s appro pri at e. They m ay hav e so m e e xc us e . I ’ m g o i ng t o he arw hat e ve r t he y hav e t o s ay , b utt he in d ic a tio n is th e y v io la te d a t lea s t tw o , m a y b e th r e e , o r d e r s o f t h e C o u r t.” Fu r t her , on Sept em ber8th, the di st r i c t c our tdes c r i bed t he c ul pabl e c onductas

“ t h ree pot en t i alv i ol ati on s” a n d, in respon se to a cl ai m of l ack of noti ce by M rs. A l l en, s t at ed, “ I don’ tm ean t o pr ej udge t hat

. I ’ m j usts ayi ng t hat ’ s w hat I w as le d t o b e li e v e a t th e tim e . . . . W e ll , if sh e [d id n o t h a v e n o tice ,] th e n th a t ’s
c e r ta in ly s o m e th in g I w o u ld c o n s id e r .” N o ta b ly , th e d is tr ic t co u r t u l t im a te ly f ou n d M rs. A l l en gu i l t y o f c o n tem pt f or vi ol ati n g on l y t h e f i n alorder t o show
cau se. A ccor di n gl y, t h e A l l en s hav e not dem on st rat ed th a t t h e d i st ri ctcourt p r eju d g e d th e ca s e . T h e A l l en s al so poi n tt o t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s s u a spon t e rec on si derati on of th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’ s a p p o in tm e n t o f a g o v e r n m e n t-f u n d e d a tt o r n e y— b u t t h is d o n o t p r o v id e a b a s is fo r re c u s a l:N o. 08- 11041

Id

. (inte rn al citationo mitt ed). 13 Andrade v. Choj nack i , 3 3 8F .3 d 4 4 8 , 4 5 5( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 3). 14 Liteky , 51 0 U .S. at55 5. 15 8 [ J] u di ci alrul i n gs al on e al m ostnev er c o n st i t u t e a val i d ba si s f or a bi as or pa rt i al i t y m ot i on . I n an d of t h em sel ves . . . th ey can n ot p o s s ib ly s h o w re lia n c e u p o n a n e x tr aju d ic ia l s o u r c e ; a n d ca n o n ly in t h e rares tci rcum st an ces ev id e n ce t h e degree of favori t i sm or ant ag o n i s m r e qui r e d .

. . w he n no e xt r aj udi c i als o ur c e i s i nvo l ve d. A lm o sti n vari ably, t h ey are proper groun ds f or app eal , not f

or r e c u s a l. 13 In eval u ati n g w h et h er a ju d ge shou l d h ave been rec u sed, our “ revi ew shou l d en t a il a caref u lconsi derati on of

context , t h at i s, t h e enti re c ou rse of ju d ic ia l p r o c e e d in g s , ra th e r th a n is o la te d in c i d e n ts .” T h e re c o r d a s a w h o le 14 d o e s n o t su p p o rt a co n clu sio n th a t th e tria l ju d g e s h o u ld h a v e r e cu se d h im se lf. T h e ori gi n alres pon se pap ers f i l ed on F ebru ary 19 b o re n ot ari zed si gn atures f r om bo t h A l l ens i ndi c at i ng t hat t hey had r ec ei ved t he orde r yet fai l ed t o c om pl y. Suc h an i nfe r e nc e w o ul d al s o hav e be e n r e as o nab l e o n June 19 , as t h e A l l ens h a d h ir e d a p r o c e s s s e r v e r to d e liv e r “a p p e a r a n c e ” d o c u m e n ts , w h ic h e x p r e s s ly
s t at e d t he y had r e c e i ve d t he o r de r s t o s ho w c aus e . Thus , a ny s t at e m e nt s b y t he t ri alj u dg e t h at t h e A l l en s k n e w o f th e orders an d d ecl i n ed to com pl y w ere reasona bl e an d n ot indic ati ve of a n t agon i sm or bi as. M oreover, t h e di st ri ctcourt di d n ot m ak e an y of t h e obj ect ed-t o st atem en t s un t i laf t er t h e A l l en s had fai l ed t o c o m p l y wi t h n o l e s s t h a n t h r e e o f i t s o r d e r s , a n d o n l y a f t e r t h e g o ve r nm e nt
m ove d f or c i vi l c ont em pt
. Th us, t he A l l ens have notdem ons t r at ed t hat t he t r i al ju d g e h a r b o r e d “a d e e p -s e a te d fa v o r it i s m o r a n ta g o n is m th a t w o u ld m a k e fa ir j udg m e nti m po s s i bl e , ” norhave t he y de m o ns t r at e d t hat“ a r e as o nab l e pe r s o n, 15N o. 08- 11041

M a tas sarin v. L

ynch , 174 F.3d549, 571 (5t h Cir. 1999) (quot ing Vieux Carre P rop. 16 Own ers, Res iden ts, a n d As so cs ., I n c. v. Bro wn , 94 8 F .2d 1 436 , 14 48 (5thC ir. 1 991 ) (intern al qu ot ationmark s o mitt ed))

.

Yo u n g v . Un ited

Statesex re l. V

u it tone tF

ils S.A

. , 4 8 1 U .S

. 7 8 7 , 7 9 3( 1 9 8 7). 17 Id

. at 7 9 5
. 18 9 w i t h f ul lkno w l e dg e o f

a l lt he c i r c um s t anc e s , w o ul d ha r bo r do ubt s a bo utt he ju d g e ’ s im p a r tia lity .” 16 C T h e A lle n s a ls o a r g u e th a t t h e tr ia l ju d g e s h o u ld h a v e re c u s e d h im s e lf becau se he ac t e d a s b o t h pr o s e c ut o r a nd j udg e i n t he c r i m i nalc o nt e m pt pr o c e e di ngs . The Al l e ns r e l y he av i l y o n t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s ac t i o ns i n a s ki ng t he G o ve r nm e ntt o pr o s e c ut e t he Al l e ns f o rc r i m i n a lc o n t e m p twh e n t h e Go v e r nm e nt i n i ti a l l y su gg ested on l y civilcon tem p t p r o c ee d i n gs an d a w ri t of attach m en t. T h e A l l en s al so poi n t t o t h e t ri al j u dg e’ s di rect i on t h at t h ree separate coun t s of
c o nt e m pt , r at he r t han a s i ngl e c o unt , s ho ul d b e pr o s e c ut e d a ga i ns t e ac h o f t he A l l en s. T h e Su prem e C ou rtha s hel d that “ i t i s l on g s e ttled tha t court s posses s in h e r e n t a u t h o r ity to in itia te co n te m p t p r o c e e d in g s fo r d is o b e d ie n c e to th e ir orders. ” Th e C ou rtnoted t h at Fed eralR u l e of C ri m i n alP rocedure 42, w h i ch

17
a l l ow s a co u rt t o u se p ri va te attorn ey s to p rose cu te con tem p t acti on s, “ref l ects t he l ongs t andi ng ac know l edgm entt hat t he i ni t i at i on o f c ont em pt pr oc ee di ngs to p u n is h d is o b e d ie n c e to co u r t o r d e r s is a p a r t o f th e ju d ic ia l fu n c tio n .” 18 H ere , the distri ct cou rt ask ed the attorn ey f or th e G ov ern m en t t o p rose cu te the A lle n s fo r cri m i n a lcon tem p t. T h e A l l en s fa i l ed to com p l y w i th
c o u r t o r d e r s o n th r e e s e p a r a te o c c a s io n s . T h e d is tr i c t c o u r t ’s a c tio n w a s in
a c c o r d a n c e w ith cu r r e n t S u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t a n d R u le 4 2 (a )(2 ).N o. 08- 11041

Inre Murch ison , 3 4 9U .S

. 1 3 3 , 1 3 7( 1 9 5 5). 19 See Am. Airlines, In c. v. Allied Pilots Ass’ n , 968 F.2 d 523 , 531 (5th Cir. 199 2) (“ [Th e 20 di strictc ourt] suasponteinitiated the cont empt pro ceeding , qu estion ed th e witn esses and oth erwi seact eda s p ro se cuto r, an d th end ecid edall factu al a n d le g al is su es .”); Inre Davidson , 908F .2d 124 9, 1 251 (5th Cir. 1 990) (“The mann er in whichthis h earingwas h andl ed c onvinc es us th at eith er (i) Ju d geHittn er t acitlyapp ointed [the appellee’ s] counselas prosecutor or (ii) J u dge Hittn erhim se lf act eda s p ro se cuto r. ”) ; see a lso U nited States v. Neal , 101 F.3 d 99 3, 9 9 6( 4 thC ir

. 1 9 9 6) (“Th e di strictj u dge co n duct edth e re sultin ghe arin gwith out th e aidof a pros ecuto r, d ecidin ghim se lf whichwitn es se s w ouldt es tifya g ain stN eal. ”)

. C f. W h it craf tv . B ro wn , 57 0 F .3d 2 68, 271 (5th Cir. 2 009) (stating th at in a civil 21 co nt e m p t p r o c e e di n g thi s c o urt “r evi e w[ s ] th e di s tric t c o urt ’ s u n d e rlyi n g f i n di n g s o f fact for cl ear erro r a n d it s un de rlyin gc onclu sion s of law d e n ovo”(inte rn al citationo mitt ed))

.

See United States v. Molina , 5 3 0F .3 d 3 2 6 , 3 2 9( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 8). 22 10 The Al l e ns a l s o a rgue t h at t he t r i alj udg e a s s um e d t he r o l e o f t he pro se c ut orand j udge be c ause he as ked w i t nes se s ques t i ons duri ng t he hear i ng, al l eged l y m ore t h an t h e G overnm en t
. W h i l e the S u prem e C ou rtha s det erm i n ed t h at a j u dg e can n ot “ act as a grand j u ry an d then t ry t h e very persons accused as a resul tof

hi s i n vest i gati on s, ” t h e C ou rtw as caref u lt o note t h at “ adj u di cat i on by a tria l ju d ge of

a contem pt c om m i t t ed i n [ a j u dg e’ s] presence i n open court
can n ot be l i ken ed to” such a proceedin g. C ou rt s hav e onl y f ou n d ba si s f

or 19
r e c us alw he n a j udg e a c t s a s b o t h t he pr o s e c ut o r a nd t he j udg e w i t ho utt he
a ssistan ce of a g ov ern m en t attorn ey . H ere the distri ct cou rt d i d n ot p rose cu te 20 t h e A l l en s— t h e G overnm en t ap t l y f i l l ed t h at rol e. F u rt h er, t h e vast m aj ori t y of t h e qu est i on s t h e A l l en s assi gn t o t h e courtw ere clar ifi cat i on qu est i on s or b a c k g r o u n d in fo r m a tio n . T h e r e fo r e , th e s e a r g u m e n ts fa il. III M rs. A l l en cl ai m s t h at t h e di strict c ou rterr ed i n adj u di cat i n g h er c o n v ic tio n f

or cr im in a l co n te m p t b e c a u s e it u s e d th e w r o n gd e fin itio n o f “w illfu l.” W e r e vi e w t he c o r r e c t ne s s o f t he l e ga ls t and ar d use d b y t he di s t r i c t c o ur tde
no v o . Bu t , b e c a us e M r s . Al l e n d i d n o t obj ec t , r e v i e w i s f o r p l a i n e r r o r . To 21 22N o. 08- 11041

See id. 23 United States v. Lan derman , 1 0 9F .3 d 1 0 5 3 , 1 0 6 8( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 7). 24 United States v. West , 21 F. 3 d607, 608 (5t h Cir. 1994) (quot ing Un ited Statesv . 25 Mc Cargo , 7 8 3F .2 d 5 0 7 , 5 1 0( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 8 6) (inte rn al qu ot ationmark s o mitt ed))

. B LACK ’ S LA W D I CTI O NARY 1 2 9 8( 8 the d. 2 0 0 4). 26 Id

. at 1 0 6 1
. 27 11 preva i l , M rs. A l l en m u stdem on st rat e ( 1) err or, ( 2) t h a t is c l ear an d obv i ou s, ( 3) t h at af

fect ed s u bstanti al ri gh t s, an d ( 4) t h at s eri ou sl y af fect ed the fai rness, i n t egri t y, or pu bl i c r epu t ati on of j u di ci alproceedi n gs. 23 W e h a v e h e l d t h a tt h e e l e m e n t s o f c r i m i nalco nt e m p t u n d e r 1 8 U. S

. C. § 4 01 ( 3) a r e : “ ( 1) a r e as o nab l y s pe c i f i c o r de r ; ( 2) v i o l at i o n o f t he or de r ; and ( 3) t he
w i l l f uli nt e n t to viol at e t he o r de r . ” I n t hi s c i r c ui t “ [ f ] o r a c r i m i nalc o nt e m pt 24
c o nvi c t i o n t o s t and , t he e vi de nc e . . . m us t s ho w b o t h a c o nt e m pt uo us a c t a nd a
w i l l f ul , contum ac i o us , o r r e c kl e s s s t at e o f m i nd. ” M r s . Al l e n c l ai m s t hatt he

25 di st ri ctcourtu sed an erroneou s d ef i n i t i on of “w i l l f

u l

. ” W h en a sked b y defense
c o uns e lt o de f

i ne “ w i l l f

ul , ” t he di s t r i c t c o ur t e xp l ai ne d: I don ’ tthink tha t ’ s necessary, bu t one of t h e t h i n gs I obvi ou sl y t ook i nt o a c c ount i s w het heri t w as done – i tw as a v ol i t i onalac t done by s o m e o n e w h o k n e w o r re a s o n a b ly s h o u ld h a v e b e e n a w a r e th a t h is orherc onductw as w r ong. A ccor di n g t o B l ack’

s La w D i ct i on ary , “ reckl ess” m ean s “ a gross dev i ati on fr o m w h a t a re a s o n a b le p e r s o n w o u ld d o .” O n th e o th e r h a n d , “n e g lig e n c e ” is 26 d e fin e d a s “[t ]h e fa ilu r e to e x e r c i s e th e s ta n d a r d o f c a r e th a t a re a s o n a b ly pr u d e n t p e r s o n wo u l d h a v e e x e r c i s e d i n a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n . ” Ba s e d o n t he 27 di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s r e c i t at i o n o f i t s de f i ni t i o n o f

w i l l f ul ne s s , i t s e e m s t o ha ve us e d a
s ta n d a r d clo s e r to n e g lig e n c e , ra th e r th a n re c k le s s n e s s .N o. 08- 11041

See West , 2 1 F .3 d at 6 0 8
. 28 Un ited

Statesv . B ro wn , 5 5 3F .3 d 7 6 8 , 7 8 5( 5thC ir

. 2 0 0 8), ce rt
. den ie ds u bnom . 29 Comb s v. United States , 12 9 S . C t. 2 812(20 09) and Bro wn v. United States , No. 09-5 316 , 20 09 WL2 0 5 8 2 3 0( Oct

. 5 , 2 0 0 9).

United Stat e sv. Sto ne , 960 F.2d426, 434 (5t h Cir. 1992) (quot ing Un ited Statesv . 30 Sellers , 9 2 6F .2 d 4 1 0 , 4 1 7( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 1 ))

.

Id

. (quot ing United States v. Con treras , 9 5 0F .2 d 2 3 2 , 2 4 0( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 1 ))

. 31 12 W e have ex pl ai ned t hat “ w i l l f ul nes s” i n t he c ont extof t he c r i m i n al contem pt s t atute ata m i n i m u m requi res a f i n di n g o f r e ck less n ess, w h i ch 28
r e qui r e s m o r e t han a f i ndi ng t hatan i ndi vi dua l“ r e as o nab l y s ho ul d ha ve kno w n” t hatt he re l e va ntco nduc tw as pr o hi bi t e d. Thus , t he di s t r i c t c o ur t c l e ar l y e r r e d. B u t , M r s . Al l e n m us ta l s o e s t ab l i s h t hatt he e r r o r w as pr ej udi c i ala nd
w ou l d resul ti n a m i scarr i ag e of j u st i ce. I n t h e an al ogou s c on t ext of j u ry in s tr u c tio n s , w e h a v e h e ld th a t “ [w ]h e n a ju r y in s tr u c tio n o m its o r s ig n ific a n tly
m i ssta tes a n esse n ti a lelem en t of a n off en se, th e err or m a y b e se ve re en ou gh to
m e e t t h e p la in -e r r o r s ta n d a r d .” In th a t c o n te x t, p la in e r r o r o c c u r s if 29 “con sider i n g th e en ti re ch a rg e a n d ev i d en ce p rese n ted ag a i n st t h e d efen d a n t, th e r e is a lik e lih o o d o f a g r a v e m is c a r r ia g e o f ju s tic e .” T h e r e le v a n t in q u ir y is 30
w h et h er t h e err on eou s s t an da rd u sed “ coul d h ave m ean t t h e di f ference betw een a c q u itt a l a n d co n v ic tio n .” 31 T h e d i s t r ic tc o u r ts t a t e d o n th e r e c o r d th a t it d id n o t c r e d it M r s . A ll e n ’s t est i m on y t h at s h e i n n ocentl y bel i eved t h at c om pl i an ce w i t h the order t o show
cau se c ou l d be ach i eved by f i l i n g “ ap pea ran ce pap e rs . ” Th e courtal so opi n ed t hat t hes e f

i l i ngs c oupl ed w i t h t he A l l ens ’c onductc om pel l ed t he c onc l usi on t hat

“ t he y di d w hat t he y di d w i l l i ngl y and i n a c o ns c i o us de c i s i o n t o s ho w c o nt e m pt of t h e j u d i ci a lsys tem an d ou r go ve rn m en t. ”N o. 08- 11041

United States v. Serna-Villarreal , 352 F.3d225 , 234 (5t h Cir

. 2003) (quot ing United 32 States v. Sh elto n , 3 2 5F .3 d 5 5 3 , 5 5 7( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 3) (inte rn al qu ot ationmark s o mitt ed))

.

Id

. 33 United States v. West , 21 F.3d6 0 7, 608 (5 th Cir. 1994) (qu oti ng Un ited Statesv . 34 Mc Cargo , 7 8 3F .2 d 5 0 7 , 5 1 0( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 8 6) (inte rn al qu ot ationmark s o mitt ed))

. 13 Th e Al l ens urg e us t o i gnor e t hes e s t at em ent s bec ause theyw er e m ade a t
sen ten ci n g, n o t tri a l

. B u t, the y cite no au th ority f or th e p rop ositi on tha t a di st ri ctcourt ’ s s t atem en t s on t h e ev i den ce at sen t en ci n g m ay n otbe consi dered
a s a n a c c u r a te r e fle c tio n o f th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s v ie w o f th e e v id e n c e d u r in gtr ia l. The t r i alj udg e ’ s s t at e m e nt s c l e ar l y i ndi c at e t hatt he c o ur t f o und t hatt he Al l e ns a c te d w illfu lly

. T h e r e w a s n o p la in e r r o r . IV M rs. A l l e n a rg u e s t h at t h e evi den ce w as i n suff i ci en t t o sup port h er convic t i on f

or cri m i n alcon t em pt. S h e p oi n t s to h er tes t i m on y t h at she b el i eved t h a t th e s u b m is s io n o f t h e “a p p e a r a n c e d o c u m e n t s ” w o u l d s a t is fy th e c o u r t ’s order. Sh e al so notes tha tsh e test i f i ed t h at she rel i ed on D an n er’ s l egal ad vi ce th a t sh e cou l d ap p ea r by f i l i n g d ocu m en ts w i th the cou rt. W e r evi ew a “ di st r i c t c our t ’ s f i ndi ng of gui l t af

t er a benc h t ri a l to de t e r m i ne w he t he r i ti s s upp o r t e d b y anys ubs t ant i ale vi de nc e . ” I n c o nduc t i ng 32 t h i s r evi ew , “ [ e] vi den ce i s s u f f i ci en t t o sust ai n a convi ct i on i f an y rat i on alt ri er o f fa c t c o u ld h a v e fo u n d t h a t th e e v id e n c e e s ta b lis h e d g u ilt b e y o n d a re a s o n a b le d o u b t. . .
. [ T ] h i s [ c ]o u r t e x a m in e s th e e v id e n c e a s a w h o le a n d co n s tr u e s it in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o r a b le to th e v e r d ic t.” 33 A c o nvi c t i o n f

o r c r i m i nalc o nt e m ptr e qui r e s b o t h a “ c o nt e m pt uo us a c ta nd
a w i l l ful, con tu m a ci ou s, o r r eck l ess s tate of m i n d

. ” M rs. A l l en d oe s n ot d i sp u te 34 t h e exi st en ce of

a contem ptuou s act
. T h u s, her convic t i on shou l d be su st ai n ed i f a r e as o nab l e j ur o r c o ul d ha ve f o und t hatt he e vi de nce est ab l i s he s b e yo nd aN o. 08- 11041

B LACK ’ S LA W D I CTI O NARY 1 2 9 8( 8 the d. 2 0 0 4). 35 United States v. Ford , 5 5 8F .3 d 3 7 1 , 3 7 6( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 9). 36 Ande rso n v. City of

Besse me r City, N.C. , 4 7 0U .S

. 5 6 4 , 5 7 4( 1 9 8 5). 37 14 reasona bl e dou bt t h at s h e act ed reck les sl y. R eckl essness i n vol ves “ a gross dev i ati on f

rom w h at a r eason able person w ou l d d o. ” T h e ev i den ce as a w h ol e, 35 i n t erpret ed i n t h e l i gh tm o st fa v o rabl e t o t h e verdi ct , sup ports t h e concl u si on t h at M rs. A l l en ’ s act i on s w ere, at a m i n i m u m , rec kles s. A l t hough t he o r der s t o s how c ause did n ot s p ec i f y t hat a pe r so nal ap pe ar anc e w as r e qui r e d, t he s e c o nd o r de r— o f w hi c h M r s . Al l e n a dm i t t e d b e i ng aw are bef

ore t h e rec ei pt of

t h e th ird order, w h i ch f orm s t h e basi s f

or her
con v iction

— di rect ed the A l l en s t o app ear i n person at a speci f i ed IR S of

f i ce l o c at i o n. M r s . Al l e n’ s a w ar e ne s s o f t he t w o p re vi o us o r de r s a t t he t i m e s he
r e c e iv e d t h e t h ir d o r d e r , a ls o s u p p o r ts th e in fe r e n c e th a t s h e a c te d w illfu lly in fai l i ng t o a ppeari n co urt
. An d, M r s. A l l en ’ s con t i nued re l i ance on t he l egal ad vi ce of

D an n er, an i n di vi du alw i t h no l egal t rai n i n g, i s a gross dev i ati on f rom
w h a t a re a s o n a b le p e r s o n w o u ld d o u n d e rth e cir c u m s ta n c e s . M oreover, t h e di st ri ct court m ad e a credi bi l i t y determ i n ati on againstM rs. Al l e n, c o nc l udi ng t hats he w as a w ar e t hathe r c o nduc t w as i n v i o l at i o n o f t he
cour t ’ s or der and t hat she del i ber at el y at t em pt ed t o avoi d appear i ng i n cou rt. W i t n ess credibi l i t y an d the w ei gh t of t h e evi den ce are t h e ex cl u si ve provi n ce of t he fac t

- f

i nde r . The di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s “ ac c o unt o f t he e vi de nc e i s pl aus i bl e i n l i ght

36 of t h e recor d vi ew ed i n i t s enti ret y, ” an d u n der t h ese c i rcum st an ces “ t h e court of appeal s m ay notr eve r se i tev en t hough co nvi nce d t hat had i t be en s i t t i ng as t he t r i erof

fac t , i tw oul d have w ei ghed t he e vi denc e di f fer ent l y. ” Acc or di ngl y,

37 M rs. A l l en ’ s s u f

f i ci en cy of

t h e evi den ce c l ai m fai l s.N o. 08- 11041

See United States v. Martinez , 6 8 6F .2 d 3 3 4 , 3 4 1 -4 2 ( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 8 2 ); see a lso U nited 38 States v. Landerman , 109 F.3d 10 53, 10 68 (5thC ir. 1 997) (definin g the eleme nts of cri minal co nte mp t)

. 15 V Fi nal l y, M r s . Al l e n ar gue s t hat1 8 U

. S. C. § 4 01 ( 3) i s unc o ns t i t ut i o nalb ut
ac kno w l e dg e s t hatw e ha ve r ej e c t e dt h i s a r g u m e n t
. Ac c o r d i n g l y, t hi s a r gum e nt 38 i s f o r e c l o s e d. * * * Fo r t h e f

o r e g o i n gr e a s o n s , we AF FI RM

.